ROHTASH MANN Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petition seeks to quash the order of appointment issued by the 1st respondent to the 2nd respondent in pursuance of a selection process for the post of Management Trainee (Finance) with the 1st respondent-Corporation. The advertisement which had been issued provided for appointment to 5 posts of which one post had been reserved to an ex-serviceman. The petitioner and the 2nd respondent were short- listed candidates for appointment in the category of ex-serviceman and Civil Writ Petition No.19014 of 2008 -2- ultimately after an interview, an offer of appointment had been made to the 2nd respondent by the Corporation on 20.05.2008. The offer directed that the 2nd respondent should report for duty before 20.06.2008, failing which the offer would stand cancelled. It appears that the 2nd respondent did not report for duty within the date stipulated in the offer of appointment, however, he had sought for extension and obtained the same. It is this order of appointment on an extended period of the offer that is challenged principally on two grounds:-

(2.) In support of the contention that the 2nd respondent did not qualify as an ex-serviceman, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner refers to the notification issued by the Central Government through an office memorandum dated 14.04.1987 and the adoption of the definition as found in the memorandum dated 14.04.1987 by the Government of Haryana. The office memorandum dated 14.04.1987 is purported to have been issued on the basis of some representations given with reference to an earlier notification issued by the Union on 27.10.1986 and came to be issued in response to some pleas for a modification of the definition of the ex-serviceman. The notification both of the years, 1986 and 1987 would require to be seen for a comprehensive understanding of whether a subsequent notification and the adoption of such notification by the Government has the effect of excluding persons, who actually were in service, but who were later relieved. The definition of the 'ex-servicemen' comes through Ex-servicemen (Re-employment in Central Civil Services and Posts) Rules, 1979. Rule 2 (c) defines an 'ex-serviceman'. It is the explanation provided to this Section that would require our immediate attention for it is through this explanation that the 2nd respondent claims that he is entitled to consideration:-

(3.) The explanation which is already made in the original rules as notified on 27.10.1986, does not appear to have been either withdrawn or changed. Through this explanation, an expanded meaning is given to accommodate the claim of persons serving in the armed forces of the Union, but on retirement from service would come within the definition of ex-servicemen as persons qualifying to be permitted to apply for re- employment one year before the completion of the specified service. The Civil Writ Petition No.19014 of 2008 -6- 1987 modification of the definition did not seek to withdraw the extended meaning to an ex-servicemen brought through explanation is seen also by a clarification given in the subsequent notification itself which is available through a subsequent para in the very same office memorandum, where the net effect of the amendment is referred to :-